January 16th, 2012

I have trouble with the hagiography of Martin Luther King. Yes, he was a great man who did a great thing for which he should be duly honored: he was an inspirational figure in the non-violent civil rights movement in this country, as well as a remarkable speaker.

The two, of course, are related. It was his personal qualities of leadership and what George H.W. Bush might rightly call “the vision thing” that enabled King to bring together so many people to peacefully demonstrate in furtherance of a lofty and necessary goal, that of ending discrimination against blacks in this country.

As for the rest of it—well, I think it can be summed up by saying that King was a flawed human being. Perhaps MLK himself would be the first to agree; he was a preacher, after all, and he knew a lot about human sin and error. It’s pretty much certain he was a philanderer as well as a plagiarist, and in later life he seemed to veer ever more leftward (some think that’s a feature, not a bug). Does that diminish his achievements? I don’t think so, if we keep it in perspective. I’ve always been more interested in real human beings who accomplish great things despite their own weaknesses than I am in a pretended (and mostly unachievable) perfection.

[NOTE: One thing that’s long amazed me is that King was so young when he was assassinated. At the time I thought him a man in his 50s, but he was actually a mere 39 years old. If he were alive today, he would only have just turned 83 yesterday.

There’s a lot of speculation on what King would have thought of current trends had he lived. I’m no expert on everything the man wrote and said, but it’s my impression that although he seemed to be in favor of some sort of reparations—which he did not limit to blacks, by the way—he would not have backed affirmative action or gay marriage. However, people do change—as I know only too well.]

This interview with King provides a great analogy of why Muslims, like the “whites of good will in Alabama” are guilty of ignoring their conscience by allowing the inhumanity and brutality of others to abide and prosper under their non-involvement.

King was a remarkable man, much more learned, thoughtful, and articulate than those next to him (e.g. John Lewis, Jessie Jackson). But to suppose he could prevent the eventual race-hustling and self-aggrandizement of his lieutenants (e.g. John Lewis, Jessie Jackson) and then the larger crowd seems unlikely.

Actually, Mr. King had already opposed his own “people” and programs. His flaws were certainly not lack of courage or power corruption. Indeed, he paid the price he indeed set for his rebellion against unjust laws. He was full of integrity to his nonviolent idea. I don’t agree with it, not quite, but you’re idea is so repugnant. To characterize a man, full grown and made, as different from what he was to what “he might have been”, well, let’s say I think you incorporate some bitterness from somewhere.

Shove him aside? I don’t think so.

No to your supposition. A resounding no. Mr. King living would have been a great whack on the dragon’s nose.

He is a symbol that represents positive progress. As a man he was imperfect and not free from sin. However, he offered leadership and several insights which can be equally appreciated by all people.

In the spirit of “I have a dream”, it would be best to honor his memory not as a black man, but a man, an American, an individual who pursued positive progress while not quite escaping his own flaws. The last is a common tale in our mortal realm.

I second neo, Occam, and Don Carlos. I have no clue what King would have become had he lived, but he did turn hard left, basically socialist and pacifist, toward the end. Probably he would have been pro-life. Gay marriage? No idea. Wasn’t even an issue when he was alive.

Undeniably a great (and flawed) man. I could not have done what he did; wouldn’t have had the energy or the courage.

In my view, he was also undeniably a man of the center-left, who was gravitating to the far left, at least on economics and foreign policy. So it goes. Righties aren’t the only ones who can do great things (interesting thought-experiment: Being honest, can you name a leftist today who you think could do something great, however you define “great”? Maybe Tony Blair on Iraq, for those who supported the war? Maybe Artur Davis?).

King was indeed a registered Republican; I’m pretty sure he would not have stayed one (how was he VOTING at the end of his life? Honest question, ’cause I don’t know).

The marxist idea that social and economic conditions determine history is largely accepted. We deny what earlier generations accepted: that individuals do shape and create history.

It was largely the person who was Martin Luther King, not anything else, who convinced a nation of a moral certaintity. Without him, there is no moral and religious founding for the equal enforcement of laws, without which, no reform would have happened. He was and is a defense for natural law and our Constitution. His intellectual foundation, coming from an intense search of history, set forth the same propositions as our founding fathers. His profundity, compared to the “authorities” of today, is so much greater as to make them dogs.

The amount of disinformation here is rather striking. At the end of his life, Dr. King was plainly in the socialist camp. He explicitly attacked conservatives like Barry Goldwater; he supported large scale income redistribution; he was against the Vietnamese War; and he explicitly denied that capitalism was the source of American wealth, he said the wealth was stolen from black slaves and poor whites.

These facts cannot be reconciled with any kind of conservatism, and the left is correct to claim him as one of theirs.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. Read More >>